View previous topic | View next topic

Fairness

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

'yorz
716354.  Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:51 pm Reply with quote

I'm good at difficult, tedious jobs. I just work myself into a rhythm, and doggedly keep going till it's done.
I know I'm a sad person....

 
bobwilson
716372.  Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:15 pm Reply with quote

I'm a bit dubious of the conclusions - so I've sent off for the original paper as advertised in the link.

 
'yorz
722964.  Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:37 am Reply with quote

Did the paper arrive, bob? And what are your thoughts?

 
iamannoying.com
843715.  Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:01 pm Reply with quote

This moralist dilemma should score closer to 100%. The moralist is the first one to not be compliant with the expressed moral. Like "I am a nice person". You are whatever you refer to as "nice", it is not a nice thing to say at all, apparently you are not nice enough to avoid the need to emphasize it, and there is hardly any space left for other opinions about you.

The same system allowed the same German lawyers to function both during and after WWII. Basicly those professionals always remained the same, but that what did change was whatever they, or rather their law-changing politicians or group, called "fair" at any moment in time (please note the bombastic, shouting judge, Raving Roland Freisler, didn't survive WOII, so not every extremist did function after WOII). Just like a court decision, AKA justice, isn't "fair" by definition.

Possible general remarks about this study: the study may have discovered that people are lazy instead. Perhaps it would have been better to make the easy task more time-consuming than the difficult task. Like 8 easy hours of slowly counting beans, or 30 difficult minutes of adding numbers. There's no reward, and a task certainly isn't a job. If there was a choice to become the (unqualified) CEO, likely to be a difficult task, as opposed to sweeping the floor, an easy task, the "fair" moralist may have opted for the difficult task instead. That'll be more convincing than some lazy, easy choice without obvious consequences.

And it's clear what this means for social politicians. If we pay the bills of their own political moral, they will sacrifice themselves by accepting the (easy) role of Robin Hood, and we will all receive a "fair" share. Hey, how "nice" is that? Vote for 'em...


Last edited by iamannoying.com on Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:20 pm; edited 4 times in total

 
iamannoying.com
843716.  Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:09 pm Reply with quote

[Deleted by iamannoying.com]


Last edited by iamannoying.com on Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:17 pm; edited 3 times in total

 
bobwilson
843717.  Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:10 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
Did the paper arrive, bob? And what are your thoughts?


No - the paper didn't arrive (I'd forgotten about this until the latest post).

Reading iamannoying's post (which seems to have been translated using some machine) I think I agree I with him/her. If I've rendered iam's post back into the original language correctly I think it says "this paper, assuming it exists, doesn't actually say anything of any value".

 
iamannoying.com
843725.  Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:31 pm Reply with quote

A Ruud Gullit's "pinchhitter"-experience. Minus 10 for the attempt.

Yes, I fear the next study concludes that over 88% of men liked women more than men, unless the age difference was over 25%.

 
'yorz
843746.  Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:30 am Reply with quote

iamannoying.com wrote:
A Ruud Gullit's "pinchhitter"-experience.

Gullit's what? Please enlighten.

 
CB27
843781.  Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:54 am Reply with quote

Our own individual morals are defined by our experience and the environment we live in. As these change so does the defined line we accept as the point we shouldn't cross.

It's easy to judge people who will choose an easy task over another for the same pay, but why should we? What's natural or "good" about choosing a hard task over an easy one except to fulfil a greedy need to appear fair?

It's therefore easy to judge those who went on with their lives and perhaps even profited from horrible events such as the Holocaust because they chose an easy life to lead, but until you live through such a situation it's unfair to judge others.

As for politicians, regardless of your politics, in a representative democracy you represent those that voted you in, and those that did not, and you need to learn to compromise. When you stop copmpromising you are then ruling by force and dictatorship, and surely that's less fair?

 
'yorz
843785.  Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:02 am Reply with quote

I completely agree with you, CB, but where does the pinchhitting come in?

 
iamannoying.com
844089.  Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:33 am Reply with quote

[quote]in a representative democracy you represent those that voted you in[/quote]

In theory, yes. In reality, no.

 
CB27
844097.  Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:04 am Reply with quote

Yorz, I think the pinchhitting comes at the start of the month (pinch, punch, first of the month), otherwise I've no idea :)

IAA.com, you say no in reality to representing those that voted you in, but you missed out my point that you also represent those that didn't vote you in, so you need to compromise. One of the very reasons the current Government is meetnig such stiff opposition to their policies is because they have a small majority as a coalition, meaning that no single party has a majority, so that some people view them as having no mandate to make some of the changes they're making. Alternatively, the Government that came in 1997 had such a large majority they were able to bring in a lot of changes with little challenge at the time. The level of representation your vote gives you determines how much compromise you need to exercise.

 
PDR
844101.  Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:15 am Reply with quote

It is far, far more desirable that life ISN'T fair.

If life really was fair then that would mean that you really do deserve all the bad shit that happens to you.

PDR

 
iamannoying.com
844102.  Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:17 am Reply with quote

[quote]Gullit's [i]what[/i]?[/quote]

Perfect, that's exactly it!

Derived from American baseball (English language), a pinch-hitter is a common phrase in, for example, Dutch football. It's a substitution near the end of the game, and the new player has a reputation to "often" score in such a situation, and/or he's changing the attacking game (like a big, tall man would do). Perhaps a bit like a supersub (cricket).

It'll have been the BBC's Match of the Day with Gary Lineker, and Ruud Gullit said something like "Alan Shearer isn't a good pinch-hitter". That sounds like perfect English. Mr. Lineker and the other people in the studio had about the same [i]what?[/i]-reaction as you, and mr. Gullit was as surprised too, learning that English people honestly didn't know what he meant with the word pinch-hitter.

A reference in Dutch, with a translation of the quote by a Google-machine:

[url]http://www.musicmeter.nl/forum/14/1322/10890#10906[/url]

"I always think of Ruud Gullit as an analyst for the BBC which began on pinch-hitter, and that the British had something like what? that expression seemed not to exist... :) Priceless."

 
Spud McLaren
844227.  Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:54 pm Reply with quote

post 843746 and post 844102...

This should be good.. I'm selling tickets...

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group